I get the feeling this could go on for a while, and while I am usually up for a good debate I've seen plenty of perfectly rational debates turn into shit throwing competitions, so I'm going to bow out of this one.

The former Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, has blamed the US for the current state of relations between Russia and the West.

In a BBC interview, Mr Gorbachev said that the Russians were ready to be constructive, but America was trying to squeeze them out of global diplomacy.

He added that the Iraq War had undermined Tony Blair's credibility.

Mr Gorbachev accused America of "empire-building", which he said the UK should have warned it away from.

'New empire'

Moscow and the West have been in dispute over Iraq, America's plans for a missile defence system and civil rights within Russia itself.

Britain's extradition request for a Russian man in connection with the murder of ex-agent Alexander Litvinenko has also caused tension.

In an interview with Radio Four's The World This Weekend, Mr Gorbachev said relations between Russia and the West were in a bad state.

"Well, it's worse than I expected," he said through a translator.

"We lost 15 years after the end of the Cold War, but the West I think and particularly the United States, our American friends, were dizzy with their success, with the success of their game that they were playing, a new empire.

"I don't understand why you, the British, did not tell them, 'Don't think about empire, we know about empires, we know that all empires break up in the end, so why start again to create a new mess.'"

He added that the war with Iraq had damaged Britain's relationship with Russia after a promising start.

"Tony Blair and Putin established a very good relationship and that made it possible to advance our relationship," he said.

"But then Iraq happened and Tony found himself in the embrace of that military monster, of that war situation, and he lost a lot of his credibility in the world and in Europe."

Woman jailed for testicle attack
A woman who ripped off her ex-boyfriend's testicle with her bare hands has been sent to prison.
Amanda Monti, 24, flew into a rage when Geoffrey Jones, 37, rejected her advances at the end of a house party, Liverpool Crown Court heard.

She pulled off his left testicle and tried to swallow it, before spitting it out. A friend handed it back to Mr Jones saying: "That's yours."

Monti admitted wounding and was jailed for two-and-a-half years.

'Pulled hard'

Sentencing Monti, Judge Charles James said it was "a very serious injury" and that Monti was not acting in self defence.

The court heard that Mr Jones had ended his long-term but "open relationship" with Monti towards the end of May last year.

The pair remained on good terms and on 30 May she picked him up from a party in Crosby and went back for drinks with friends at Mr Jones's house.

An argument ensued and Mr Jones said there was a struggle between them.

In his statement, Mr Jones said she grabbed his genitals and "pulled hard".

I am in no way a violent person

Amanda Monti

He added: "That caused my underpants to come off and I found I was completely naked and in excruciating pain."

The court heard that a friend saw Monti put Mr Jones's testicle into her mouth and try to swallow it.

She choked and spat it back into her hand before the friend grabbed it and gave it back to Mr Jones. Doctors were unable to re-attach the organ.

In a letter to the court, Monti said she was sorry for what she had done.

She said: "It was never my intention to cause harm to Geoff and the fact that I have caused him injury will live with me forever. I am in no way a violent person."

The letter added: "I have challenged myself to explain what has happened but still I just cannot remember. This has caused much anguish to me and will do for the rest of my life."

guess because they didn’t beat her to a pulp, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) claims that its "Officers" did not "Hassle Female Passenger with Toddler at Reagan National Airport over Sippy Cup." Perhaps the agency needs a dictionary with "hassle" defined in one-syllable words that even its cretins can understand.

Monica Emmerson was trying to catch a flight on June 11 when she collided with the TSA’s policy against liquids: her son’s sippy cup had water in it. The goon searching her child stole – sorry, confiscated – the cup. And a good thing, too: those jumbo jets may look sturdy, but American aviation is a frail and fragile industry undone by gels and lotions, cigarette lighters, passengers’ shoes, and, of course, sippy cups. "Monica wanted the cup back," wrote Bill Adler, the blogger who broke the story last week, "because [it] was the only way her son would drink... So she was willing to spill the water out. Drink the water. Anything – all that she wanted was to be able to have a cup that her 19-month-old toddler could drink from."

Imagine how smugly a bully willing to rob a toddler of his sippy cup greeted Monica’s suggestions. Kids clutching contraband are about as close to terrorists as airport flunkies come, so they abuse them accordingly. Bonus points for making the mothers cry harder than the kids.

Monica was "advised that I would have to leave security and come back through with an empty cup in order to retain the cup. As I was escorted out of security by TSA and a police officer, I unscrewed the cup to drink the water, which accidentally spilled because I was so upset with the situation. At this point, I was detained against my will by the police officer and threatened to be arrested for endangering other passengers with the spilled 3 to 4 ounces of water. I was ordered to clean the water, so I got on my hands and knees. ...while I was being detained,... the officer threatened to arrest me if I moved....I was ordered to apologize for the spilled water, and again threatened with arrest. I was threatened several times with arrest while detained, and while three other police officers were called to the scene.... A total of four police officers and three TSA officers reported to the scene where I was being held against my will. I was also told that I should not disrespect the officer and could be arrested for this too. I apologized to the officer and she continued to detain me despite me telling her that I would miss my flight. The officer advised me that I should have thought about this before I 'intentionally spilled the water!'"

Monica is either a current or former employee with the Secret Service, which predictably "declined comment on [her] employment status." And you can see why: confirming that little detail would likely endanger national security as much as her son’s sippy cup has. But since Monica is or was with the Feds, we shouldn’t be surprised if she’s mendacious. And the TSA lost no time in calling her a liar. That takes a fair ton of gall, given the agency’s extreme allergy to truth. It lies about everything all the time, from the delays its checkpoints cause passengers to its air marshals’ murder of Rigoberto Alpizar. And though Monica’s account does contain some discrepancies, it doesn’t approach the number in the average press release from the TSA.

Her tallest tale seems to be that she spilled the water when she may have deliberately dumped it. The TSA’s "official Incident Report" claims that "she opened the child's drink container and held her arm out and poured the contents (approx. 6 to 8 ounces) on the floor." To bolster this story, it posted video footage of Monica’s travail on its website. Actually, at the crucial moment, a passer-by blocks our view of Monica’s hand and the cup so that it’s unclear exactly what happens. We see Monica shaking the cup upside down immediately afterwards, but she could be demonstrating its emptiness. This ambiguity implies that the ham-fisted TSA hasn’t doctored the film: otherwise, the camera would zoom in as an ocean cascades to the floor. Meanwhile, Monica gives as good as she gets: she calls it a "gross lie" when the TSA alleges that she "told an officer that she was a Secret Service agent, flashed her credentials and said she was exempt from the ‘stupid’ policy restricting liquids on planes." As proof, there’s the "video footage [that] shows her digging in her luggage for identification."

More important than who’s lying is the TSA’s outsized attempt to discredit – and therefore silence – this critic. Even the mainstream media notes that it took an "unusual step" when it posted the video. But the TSA went further: it features the film in a newly created section entitled "MythBusters." Joseph Goebbels must be rolling his eyes. The TSA apparently reasons that Monica’s inaccuracies, whether deliberate or due to stress, somehow excuse its five years of unconstitutional searches, thefts, groping, rapes, and assaults. It also assumes – tragically and correctly, given such comments as those on ABC-News – that Americans are far enough gone in totalitarianism to applaud officers’ surrounding a mother and child, menacing them, forcing the woman to mop the floor, humiliating her as other passengers flow past. The video goes on…and on…and on for almost 10 minutes (Monica and her son don’t appear until 55 seconds into the 10-minutes-and-48-seconds clip), as brutes with nothing better to do torment this innocuous duo. Monica tries to walk away at one point; a female officer grabs her arm and yanks her back. Two TSA dimwits laugh at her. A cop arrives on a bicycle as though this unarmed woman and baby pose a threat. Something’s horrifically wrong when a puddle can occupy this many leeches for this long. Nevertheless, "The TSA said in a statement that the incident and the videotape demonstrate that its ‘officers display professionalism and concern for all passengers.’" Leviathan’s lackeys wiping the floor with a citizen shows many things, but "professionalism and concern for all passengers" are not among them.

Earl Morris, a "deputy assistant administrator for security operations with the TSA," told the Associated Press, "The allegation here that we were out of control is absolutely false." So is the allegation that the TSA fights terrorists.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A high school senior's 14-foot banner proclaiming "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" gave the Supreme Court a provocative prop for a lively argument Monday about the extent of schools' control over student speech.

What was the ruling on it?

US student loses free speech case

A former high school student has lost his case in what is the US Supreme Court's first major ruling on students' free speech rights in almost 20 years.

At issue was whether a school principal violated a student's right to free speech by suspending him for displaying a banner reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus".

Joseph Frederick unfurled the banner near to his school as the Olympic flame passed through Juneau, Alaska, in 2002.

The Supreme Court justices ruled by 5-4 that his rights were not violated.

Chief Justice John Roberts said in a written ruling that schools may prohibit student expression that can be interpreted as advocating the use of drugs.

Mr Frederick, 18 at the time, said the words on his 14ft (4.26m) banner did not relate to drug use and were meant to be funny in an attempt to get on television.

Head teacher Deborah Morse, who destroyed Mr Frederick's banner and suspended him for 10 days, argued that the banner's message went against the school's anti-drugs policy and was unfurled during a school event to watch the flame pass.

A bong is a type of water pipe that can be used to smoke marijuana.

Bush's backing

The Supreme Court's ruling has tightened limits on students' rights to free speech at school events.

Chief Justice Roberts wrote: "The message on Frederick's banner is cryptic. But Principal Morse thought the banner would be interpreted by those viewing it as promoting illegal drug use, and that interpretation is plainly a reasonable one."

The court found that schools "may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use".

This meant Mr Frederick's constitutional free speech rights were not violated by the confiscation of his banner and his suspension, Chief Justice Roberts concluded.

Ms Morse and the Juneau school board were supported by the Bush administration, which wanted a broad rule that public schools do not have to tolerate speech that disrupts their basic educational mission.

Vietnam precedent

Mr Frederick, now 23 and studying and teaching in China, was backed in the case by the American Civil Liberties Union and the American Center for Law and Justice.

He was also supported by conservative groups concerned that a ruling against him could allow schools to limit students' expression of religious views, particularly on the issues of abortion and homosexuality.

Mr Frederick's lawyer, Douglas Mertz, argued that the court should stand by its 1969 ruling that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate".

In that case, at the height of the Vietnam War, the Supreme Court decided in favour of students who wanted to wear black armbands in class to protest against the war.

But the court ruled in the late 1980s that a student did not have the right to give a sexually-suggestive speech at a school assembly and that school newspapers could be censored.

Surely, "Bong Hits" refers to the striking of a giant bell, right? Where in the world did they get off assuming it was about drug use? I think this reveals quite a bit about those Supreme Court justices... hmmm? Just what are they doing during those "recesses" anyway?

(P.S. Sarcasm meter = 9.5)

_________________Let's hear it again for the London Philharmonic Orchestra!

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A high school senior's 14-foot banner proclaiming "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" gave the Supreme Court a provocative prop for a lively argument Monday about the extent of schools' control over student speech.

Mr_Green_Genes wrote:

US student loses free speech case

A former high school student has lost his case in what is the US Supreme Court's first major ruling on students' free speech rights in almost 20 years.

At issue was whether a school principal violated a student's right to free speech by suspending him for displaying a banner reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus".

Fireworks at The Mall in Washington, DC. Little Richard plays rousing rendition of his original classic, Directly From My Heart To You.

WASHINGTON, DC/JULY 4, 2007 - Little Richard brought down the house this afternoon. He played a few numbers, and was backed by a full band with horn section. In the middle of his three-number set, he played Directly From My Heart To You. I loved it!!! - jimmie d

A species of egg-laying mammal, named after TV naturalist Sir David Attenborough, is not extinct as was previously thought, say scientists.

On a recent visit to Papua's Cyclops Mountains, researchers uncovered burrows and tracks made by the Attenborough's long-beaked echidna.

The species is only known to biologists through a specimen from 1961, which is housed in a museum in the Netherlands.

The team will return to Papua next year to find and photograph the creature.

The month-long expedition by scientists from the Zoological Society of London (ZSL) involved travelling to parts of the mountain range, covered by thick jungle, which had remained unexplored for more than 45 years.

Lone specimen

Jonathan Baillie, ZSL's Evolutionarily Distinct and Globally Endangered (Edge) programme manager, said: "We hope that Sir David Attenborough will be delighted to hear that his namesake species is still surviving in the wilds of the Papaun jungle."

The creature had not been recorded since a Dutch botanist collected the only known specimen in the cloud forest of the Cyclops Mountains in 1961.

As a result, it was widely assumed that the shoe box-sized species (Zaglossus attenboroughi) was extinct.

But while the Edge team were in the area, they spoke to local tribespeople who said that they had seen the creature as recently as 2005.

The scientists also discovered "nose pokes", holes in the ground made by the echidnas as they stuck their long noses into soil to feed.

In the programme's blog, Dr Baillie wrote: "Attenborough's echidna is one of five monotremes (egg-laying mammals) that first inhabited the Earth around the time of the dinosaurs.

The creature had not been recorded since a Dutch botanist collected the only known specimen in the cloud forest of the Cyclops Mountains in 1961.

As a result, it was widely assumed that the shoe box-sized species (Zaglossus attenboroughi) was extinct.

But while the Edge team were in the area, they spoke to local tribespeople who said that they had seen the creature as recently as 2005.

The scientists also discovered "nose pokes", holes in the ground made by the echidnas as they stuck their long noses into soil to feed.

In the programme's blog, Dr Baillie wrote: "Attenborough's echidna is one of five monotremes (egg-laying mammals) that first inhabited the Earth around the time of the dinosaurs.

Not sure if this is old news or not, but I just got an email about this and I checked it out and it's legit. Apologies for the unnecessary characters, but I'm too lazy to clean it up prior to posting:

Google has implemented a new feature which enables you to type a
> > telephone number into the search bar and hit enter and you will be
> > given the person's name and address. If you then hit MapQuest, you
> > will get a map to the person's house. Everyone should be aware of
> > this! It's a nationwide reverse telephone book.
> >
> > If a child gives out his/her phone number, someone can now look it
> > up to find out where he/she lives. The safety issues are obvious,
> > and alarming.
> >
> > Note that you can have your phone number removed or blocked. I tried
> > my number and it came up along with the mapquest and directions
> > straight to our house. I did fill out the removal form for myself,
> > and encourage all of you to do the same. Quite scary.
> >
> > Please look up your own number.
> >
> > In o rder to test whether your phone number is mapped, go to: google
> > ( http://www.google.com/ ) Type your phone number in the search bar
> > (i.e. 555-555-1212) and hit enter. If you want to BLOCK Google from
> > divulging your private information, simply click on your telephone
> > number and then click on the Removal Form. Removal takes 48-hours.

_________________Let's hear it again for the London Philharmonic Orchestra!

After a rare all-night session, the United States Senate voted today at 11am EST on the Levin/Reed Amendment which would pullout United States troops from Iraq, but only 52 votes were cast in favor of the amendment and 47 were cast against it, falling just short of the 60 votes needed to overcome the Republican filibuster of the measure.

Cots were brought in for the Senators to catch snatches of sleep during the long night, while some slept at their apartments for short periods of time. Pizza was brought in for senators to eat.

Four Republicans senators, including both of Maine's senators, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe voted with Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Gordon Smith of Oregon

Had the bill passed, troops would have left Iraq 120 days after the vote, and would have been out of the country by April of 2008.

Last night during the all-night senate debate, Democratic Majority Leader from Nevada, Harry Reid, asked that the Senate vote on the bill this morning.

After the motion failed, Reid proposed that the Senate look at a series of Iraq proposals and make them subject to a simple majority vote, included the failed plan. Mitch McConnell, the Republican Minority Leader from Kentucky objected and Reid withdrew the legislation from the floor and the Senate moved on to discussing student loans and grants.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum